Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak in support of the motion. This is a case of promise made and promise broken by this government. Mr. Chairman, I don't think it was an expensive project. It was a committee made up of the Minister and the two chairs of the committee. It was a very organized work. I thought it was very good work. It was a really good experience for me because we had really good support from the staff and if somebody would just go and look on their shelves, there is a study already finished. It's quite a big binder. It's laying out very clearly phase one, phase two, phase three and phase four. You don't even have to do a lot of legwork. Somebody just has to open that binder and if anybody is using it as a doorstop or they can't find it, I have a copy in my office. I would be happy to lend that copy because I forward everything and just get on with it. I don't even think you need extra money to implement that. The next phase is to set up one PY or something and it's supposed to streamline and help the agencies and boards we have here. So I am going to speak in support of this and I am going to have more faith than Member Groenewegen. If there is political will, there is a way and the promise broken can be kept. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. To the motion.

Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Thank you.

---Applause

We are on page 2-25. Executive offices, activity summary, executive offices, operations expenditure summary. $6.639 million. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to ask the Minister how exactly the review on the agencies, boards and commissions fell off the priority list.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I said earlier, the work was initially recommended I believe in the 2004 or 2005 fiscal year. Because of limited resources and the workload, it was deferred from that year to 2005-2006. Mr. Chair, looking at the work we had to do and the money, it just was one of the things that didn't make it in this year's budget. Mr. Chair, when we come to this year, the problem we had was by the time we staff it, we would be to the end of our term or very near to it. Mr. Chair, largely financial, partly workload. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am just having a little bit of trouble understanding how it is that, between FMBS and HR last summer, they somehow miraculously found $500,000 to sole source a contract to an American company to come in and do work there. You are telling me today that this falls off the government's radar because it doesn't have the resources to get the work done. Mr. Chair, something doesn't add up there. I mentioned earlier the fact that, last year, we have added the macroeconomic policy shop in the Department of Finance at a cost of $1 million. I still don't understand why that was allowed to happen because, again, until we get a deal with Ottawa, we are on a fixed income. Nobody can convince me otherwise that we need a macroeconomic policy shop until we are in a position where we are the determiners of our own fate and our own destiny, and we are not. Make no mistake about that. We have limited ability everywhere you look. So, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to make those points. I don't buy the argument that we didn't have the resources. If we had the resources to do the Hackett report and go and find money there, that argument doesn't wash with me, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Next I have Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to read this section in this Hansard. It says, "Mr. Speaker, I could tell you, though, that we should not hold out our expectations that there will be a resource revenue sharing deal in the 2007-08 budget. When I met with the Prime Minister last week, he told me that it was premature, that he wasn't going to be able to deal with that part, but he would deal with the fiscal imbalance..." blah, blah, blah, "but basically I don't see..." -- I am skipping over a few sections -- "basically, I don't see a resource sharing deal." So, Mr. Chair, in light of that, those were the words from the Premier yesterday about no resource deal on devolution, et cetera. Why do we have $500,000 being spent on devolution negotiations if we have no expectations of a devolution or resource deal concluded in the near future? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If we had a resource revenue sharing devolution deal to be completed now, we wouldn't need money to continue negotiations. But because we don't have a deal, I am not giving up on this, as I said earlier today. We need money for negotiations. Negotiations are ongoing. There were negotiation sessions this week. I don't know exactly when the next one is scheduled, but we are persisting on this and do require funding to continue negotiations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On one hand, we continue with negotiations. On the other hand, we say that there is no headway and nothing is coming. I am just kind of cautious as we see $500,000 put down there. What can the Premier tell me today, or tell this House or this Assembly, tell everyone, what are we doing or what have we accomplished? Let's get down to nuts and bolts. What is stopping us from having one, or what have we accomplished to get one signed? If you just said yesterday that you don't expect one, what should we expect? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Within the budget of the Executive, there is money for both our own staff positions on devolution. There is also money in the grant that goes to the aboriginal organizations to enable them to participate. Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, negotiations are ongoing. Harvey Andre is the federal negotiator. Our negotiations are led by Hal Gerein who has been leading them for a number of years now. There are six issues we are dealing with.

First of all, let me go through them very quickly. On the A base funding level, there is considerable difference. The federal government is offering us $54 million. Our numbers show that something more in the range of $65 to $80 million is what is required. So those negotiations are continuing. There is one-time transitional costs. Again, there is about $6 or $7 million difference on that one. There is treatment of resource revenues that is net fiscal benefits. Again, we are apart on that, but may have some agreement on some principles. There is Norman Wells ownership share. That one, there is considerable difference between ourselves and Canada on it. There is onshore, offshore issues. Again, I think we will be able to come to an agreement on that one. I am missing one more here. Human resources is the one I am missing. There are negotiations going on there. We have suggested a five-year transition period where federal employees who transfer to GNWT would be grandfathered. They would keep their salary levels and benefits, even though they are higher, for a five-year period. After that, they would go to GNWT salaries. The federal government has rejected that. That is being negotiated as well.

At the same time as we are negotiating with the federal government on those issues, we are also having discussions with the aboriginal leaders on resource revenue sharing. I believe generally the position we have taken is that 25 percent will go to aboriginal organizations, governments, for their capacity building and then anything beyond of monies we receive would be shared depending on the amount of self-government they take. Mr. Chair, the position we have taken as a government is consistent with the O'Brien report. That is the federal Expert Panel on Fiscal Imbalance. That is that 50 percent of the resource revenue should come to the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Chair, the next negotiating sessions are scheduled for March 15th and 16th. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I draw this conclusion only because it just seems as if...and my colleague Mr. McLeod was expressing some of the frustration today on this side of the House, which is it almost seems as if, in the last 20 years, we have been negotiating against ourselves and not going anywhere, yet you made the statement of saying that and now we have more devolution negotiation money. Are we just negotiating for the sake of negotiations? What good faith commitments that we are moving forward on this issue are we getting? If you say that the Prime Minister basically has assured us that we are not going anywhere, yes, we are going to do some funding adjustments, of course, that are potential in the budget, which comes in a couple of weeks, but that being said, what good faith statements and writing do you have that we are going to put an end to this problem? I think the last three or four, maybe even five Premiers and Government Leaders have all said the same thing. This is going to be the government. This is going to be the year. This is going to be the new legacy of our future. So I would like to hear what the Prime Minister is saying about dealing with this problem. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The challenge that the Prime Minister has is that the O'Brien report that looks at fiscal imbalance across Canada including equalization, formula financing and resource revenue sharing, makes some recommendations, basically the ones we are interested in, on resource revenue sharing; that is, 50 percent come to the territories or the provinces and 50 percent stays in the federal government. Unfortunately, for the Prime Minister, five provinces are in favour of no resources being included in equalization or tied to the financing and five provinces are in favour of all of it being included. So it is a no-win situation that he faces. If he could deal with resource revenue sharing across the country, then he would also deal with it easily with the Northwest Territories. He is not saying there is no use negotiating any more, and nor am I. He is not saying throw in the towel and let's quit. What he told me is that it is not going to be included in this upcoming budget. That doesn't mean we stop negotiating. It means we continue negotiating and hopefully we can achieve some success in 2007-08 or soon toward, first of all, an agreement-in-principle and then, second, a final agreement. We don't even have an agreement-in-principle although four aboriginal governments are onside with us. We don't have an agreement-in-principle. That is the first step. I have set a target of the end of March for that. I have set that target before we knew when the budget would be. The Prime

Minister's position, as well, we haven't even got the agreement-in-principle yet, so I don't expect something in the budget in advance of making more progress on this. The federal government will continue to negotiate. They will negotiate hard. We have to negotiate hard. We have to get a good deal, not just any deal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to hear a little further on what support we have from all of the aboriginal organizations and at what point does the Premier say enough is enough and we have to move forward? If we are getting two-thirds or majority, or in a sense of 75 percent of the aboriginal organizations are, all but one, at what point does the Premier demonstrate that we have to move forward for the territory as a whole? If Canada sees fractures and the lack of leadership from our Premier on this issue, we have to lead and work on bringing in the fold or remainder groups if there is any outstanding. I would like to hear what he is doing to get that issue dealt with and that file closed. That has often been a problem. I see Canada seeing that as a problem. I would also like to hear the Premier really say that he would be burning the midnight oil until August 31st when we go to an election, that the heat on this file will not be taken off by his office. I don't believe in the defeatist position. We should be down there just like my colleagues say. I have said to the Premier before, let's take out Globe and Mail ads and start advertising what is happening here and letting people know. What do we have to be afraid of? Well, we have one Member in Parliament. It is not like one Member is going to change the Prime Minister's point of view whether this one Member today is in government or not in government or in the fourth party that is down the pole. The fact is, whose feelings are we afraid to hurt? Take out an ad. Start placing our position. Let's get something on the books. Thank you.